Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider ask for prayer and fasting

[pnewton]

Recognize they are in the minority.

That is not something I agree with. I have seen an increase, not a decline, in polarization of viewpoints both in theology and politics. If most people were capable of research, I would expect to see more capable of compromise and appreciation of divergent views, even the ones they disagree with.

 

[pnewton]

? Women deacons are impossible and that is Catholic dogma because the diaconate is part of Holy Orders.

There is no doctrine of this. It is a doctrinal opinion many hold though. This impossibility has never been defined as the impossibility of priestly ordination for women has. In his exploration of the the topic in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, St. John Paul specifically used the phrase “priestly ordination.” In the commission (my mistake, it was not a synod) Pope Francis requested, the questions were:

“What were these female deacons?” the pontiff recalled asking the professor. “Did they have ordination or no?”

“It was a bit obscure,” said Francis. “What was the role of the deaconess in that time?”

“Constituting an official commission that might study the question?” the pontiff asked aloud. “I believe yes. It would do good for the church to clarify this point. I am in agreement. I will speak to do something like this.”

Francis to create commission to study female deacons in Catholic church

In possible historic shift, Pope Francis announced Thursday he will create a commission to study the possibility of allowing women to serve as deacons in the Catholic church.

www.ncronline.org

Better understanding of doctrine can come from such exploration, even when that understanding doesn’t change any practice.

One more parallel we have, was the Pope’s willingness to include women in the discussion about women. So it instead of blaming the liberal church in the Amazon for being the focus of this synod, realize it is the natural place to hold a synod on how to meet the needs of the Church there.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

They ideally shouldn’t be alone, which is why, as mentioned earlier, it is good for them to be in a community of priests, where they can help each other live out their vocations as priests

Aren’t there an awful lot of permanent deacons? Why not send them with the priests to assist? More useful than a wife and kids I would think and far less demanding. And who knows, maybe they wouldn’t have to be deacons forever.

 

[AlbMagno]

Th dioceses would be deprived of their service, and they would be separated from their families, when they were never called to be missionaries in the first place.

Also, there aren’t an awful lot of permanent deacons. In my case, for example, I know various priests from 2 dioceses, but haven’t met a permanent deacon yet.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Or archdiocese has plenty and the one that was at my local parish until recently was tasked with being a liturgist, a rather superfluous role considering the liturgy is already set. He was also single. And since he is under obedience it doesn’t matter that he thinks he wasn’t called to mission work since if the bishop says he is too do so he clearly was called to it.

We have Ugandan priests here (ostensibly doing missions within the church) who also probably thought they’d never leave Africa and Africa certainly does not have an abundance of spare priests.

 

[pnewton]

Compromise only works in some situations.

I works in most situations. The only time divergent viewpoints are mutually exclusive are when there is an absolute truth. The criticism of the point has almost always been on a matter of action, discipline, or prudence, not doctrine. The few times there have been disagreement on doctrine, it has been a doctrine that has not been defined as such.

 

[pnewton]

Aren’t there an awful lot of permanent deacons? Why not send them with the priests to assist?

Few (if any) are a part of a religious organization. Most are diocesan, many still with jobs, and a lot with family. They simply aren’t a resource for foreign missions.

 

[pnewton]

Then let me look to this letter, the OP. If there is a significant voice that agrees with these two people on their first point, for example, it might take the form of a paragraph inserted to affirm the Church teaching on animism or deism, or whatever the particular threat to the faithful might be. In any case where some change is seen (by several, not just 2) as making the faithful believe contrary to a doctrine, simply reassert that doctrine with the change.

 

[Rubee]

Bizarrely, I have a very different take on Shamanism than the prelates who oppose those passages, which is why I think I am more accomodating to some of that language that seems, on the surface, problematic (Some are genuinely problematic, IMHO). But I support their right to protect the deposit of faith from corruption or dilution.

My own take on Shamanism is along the same lines as my approach to Buddhism: I see it as a ‘natural’ religion, as opposed to a supernatural faith, like ours, which we get from God intervening in History. The truths and insights of Shamanism, like those of Buddhism, come from the experience of practitioners.

I don’t believe it is necessarily false. I believe a lot of the ‘supernatural’ elements of Shamanic practice and belief are actually very natural. The problem I see with us sometimes (and by us, I mean traditional Christians) is that we forget human beings are spiritual beings too. So we seek explanations of anything that doesn’t seem strictly mechanical/materialist in either Heaven or Hell. We forget earth (and by that, I mean our own nature). I believe a lot of the Shamanic healing powers and their ‘spirit guides’ or what-have-you are simply contents of the human soul, nothing supernatural. Shamanic journeying seems like an inward exploration of the soul and it’s idealic images and symbols, much like Buddhist meditation, but of a different sort. Whereas Buddhism is more apophatic, Shamanism is more cataphatic.

My preferred approach would not be to shun Shamanism or embrace it, but integrate it in much the same ways the early church did with pagan Greek philosophy and some local practices. I believe there’s a way to frame Shamanic concepts, ideas, and practices that’s in line with the Catholic understanding of the world and/or revelation.

Shamans were the earliest human priests, as well as doctors and guides and chiefs and leaders. I’ve been seeing one of the main practices, soul retrieval for an afflicted person, as a kind of metaphor/analogy/foreshadowing of what Christ did for all souls. I could see evangelism in that part of the world being framed around, “Jesus, the ultimate Shaman” or something of the sort.

In Shamanic practice, the shaman journeys into an underworld of sorts to retrieve a ‘split off’ part of the soul of a sick or suffering person, and this sometimes means negotiating with, tricking, fighting with all sorts of ‘entities’ to rescue that split off part. Approaching shamanic peoples with the story of Christ’s ultimate journeying to the ultimate underworld to retrieve ALL souls and heal the ultimate sickness: it seems like these people would instantly get it.

 

[Maximus1]

Saint Paul calls it a" gift". He distinguishes it from the status of those without the gift who are suitable to making families. He is describing sex drive it seems, to an extent. And he seems to imply via the " gift" a different predisposition. OTHERWIZE it would be his CHOICE and WILL, not a gift.
Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote on the subject as well. He considered the state of celibacy unnatural ( I think unnatural in a sense of absent a charism). That isn’t an aspersion, it recognises the predominant nature of men.

 

[Rubee]

It’s unnatural to everyone just as fasting is. And like fasting, everyone is capable of it unless some sort of illness interferes. It’s not a ‘special charism’, it’s a sacrifice–and if one is unmarried, a moral imperative admitting no exception. It would make no sense to think God commands everyone to do what only a special few are capable of.

 

[Maximus1]

Clement of Alexandria thought marriage was the natural state.
Paul spoke of " GIFT". AND THAT has been determined a Charism.
Where else would the gift come from besides the Holy Spirit.
This is obviously not my idea. I learned it from priests that it is a Charism.

 

[Rubee]

Marriage is natural, that doesn’t make celibacy a ‘charism’. It’s a sacrifice and indeed a gift (because it is a sacrifice!), but please find me a list by the church where celibacy is deemed a charism. If you can, I think it’ll be easier to accept your interpretation of St. Paul.

Sure, there’re special graces in holy orders to enable priests live out their faithfulness, just as there is in marriage for married people. But ‘gift’ and ‘charism’ are not synonymous. If they were, we would see celibacy in the church’s lists of charism.

(1) There are natural talents/'gift’s/potentials we are all born with, (2) there are natural talents/'gift’s/potentials we are born with but differ in (3) there are graces we all find in prayer, sacraments, and daily life, and (4) there are special ‘powers’ or gifts that come to us, also through grace, but in our callings/vocations.

Now, “I wish that all men were [unmarried] as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that,” St. Paul says. And from this you extrapolate that he means the same things we label ‘charisms’ of the Holy Spirit.

But he’s clearly speaking of what we now call ‘vocations’, which come with accompanying ‘gifts’/‘talents’/‘strengths’ etc.

Do we all have a vocation to live celibately, whether in holy orders, the religious life, or through some lay ministry? Of course not. MOST of us are called to marriage as we’ve always known and the church has always taught–forever. Does it mean we can’t live celibately? Nope!

So does it make celibacy a ‘charism’, like miraculous healing or stigmata or prophecy? Or even wisdom, teaching, and counsel? Absolutely not. Celibacy is something every healthy person can do, however difficult or unpleasant it may be sometimes. The rest are not.

To put it differently, you seem to be arguing or suggesting that it’s an ability you’re born with or not, like your natural speed or some other athletic ability. But we are all designed for marriage and able to be celibate if our lives turn out that way. The special gifts the Lord, the apostles, and the church speak of re-celibacy are not to be found in our nature but in grace: which means none of us are excluded should we need to lead a celibate life, for whatever reason, like:

(a) Holy orders or Religious vocation
(b) A spouse who cannot/will not perform the marital act
(c )The lack of a spouse/singleness.

Everyone is able to refrain from sex for moral reasons, regardless of their situation. It is not the special ‘gift’ of some only.

 

[Maximus1]

I disagree.
First, I didn’t invent this idea I read it via a priest.
Second, Paul wouldn’t wish all men could be celibate and not marry if he thought everyone could do it like he did. His gift was a lack of drive to be with a woman clearly. Not necessarily 100% , but sufficient not to live an unhealthy, unhappy distracted existence. He wrote about his gift precisely because he distinguished the majority of men who didn’t have it.
Like I said, Clement of Alexandria expressly said celibacy is UNNATURAL. FOR men without Paul’s “gift”.
The fact that men can abstain does not change the fact that for most, it is UNNATURAL. FOR some, it is no " excessive" burden. That is the gift. You might not think so, that is a big gift. Clements student, Origen, to maintain a sinless state( caused by his sex drive), castrated himself.
HE HAD NO GIFT and his solution was pretty radical… Paul opperates within his nature.
Your idea of can’t live celibate is misguided very respectfully. You would have unhappy and unhealthy priests without Paul’s gift. ( A problem that has manifested in priests doing things the unhappy and unhealthy do.) It has damaged the institution not to mention the atrocity. Paul did not blame those unable. He preached that we live within our nature and that thr institutions of Holy Orders or marriage were both proper

 

[Rubee]

A problem that has manifested in priests doing things the unhappy and unhealthy do.) It has damaged the institution not to mention the atrocity.

This is what’s misguided. Are you blaming the church’s problems with ‘unhealthy and unhappy priests’ on celibacy? What do you think so-called ‘unhappy and unhealthy’ priests (because, allegedly of celibacy) have done? On what are you basing this? I hope you’re not insinuating that nonsense claim linking the abuse scandal to celibacy, or at least, not without some facts and evidence.

The idea that you can’t be healthy and happy without sex or that celibacy can turn a normal person abusive is part of the false ‘wisdom’ of the modern world. I hope everyone resists these lies. And, again, marriage is natural to us all. It’s literally in our bodies: male and female, made he man. And everyone not abnormal/sick can be celibate if they have to be.

There is no one born with an inability to be moral in normal circumstances and sometimes that will require a life of no sex. If sex is no longer possible with your spouse, you can be celibate, and no; you won’t turn into a deranged sex-abuser because of it. If you are single and haven’t found a spouse for whatever reason, you can be without sex, and no; it will not turn you unhealthy or abusive. It will not even mean you must be unhappy. Again, I hope Christians resist the false ‘wisdom’ of the world.

Lastly, it’s telling that the CHURCH doesn’t list celibacy among the charisms and you have to refer to ‘a priest’ as your authority. Surely the church would know if celibacy was a charism.

 

[Maximus1]

I am glad you framed your position clearly. It gives me an opportunity to clarify what I said.
Unhealthy unhappy priests is an evaluation I accept from a priest who took vows 50 years ago. I have to defer to his wisdom.
But unhealthy and unhappy does not make you a pedophile . Not unhappy or unhealthy derived from coping with celibacy when you are not suited to it.
The point about the scandal circumstances derives from something else more closely related to recruitment.
Let’s go back in time, then move forward.
No need to go back more than the middle ages.
The young men in society require a vocation.
You have your healthy heterosexual men. Some have Paul’s gift. Some do not. Most cannot find it. PAUL HIMSELF RECOGNIZED THIS.Celibacy has caused a thoughtful decision in vocation choice. The church requires reflection and a truly honest assessment here.
Now let’s say you are a pedophile. You are not oriented to women. In fact there will be pressures to take a wife you have no impulse for. ( And you prefer not to engage a charade)
Next, your impulse will get you killed in a very unforgiving world. Everytime you act on it, you risk your life.
Where can you find sanctuary? WHERE CAN YOU FLOURISH?Obvious.
In the church, position and as we now know, hierarchy protects you. ( I say this with a view from the pedophiles likely mindset). Fraternity is not a hardship as it would be for a heterosexual. You can be you, and a pillar, in safety
This is the influence of Celibacy rules. Disproportion, and a structure of protection.
Next. It is not a stretch for me to listen to a priest who has eye witnessed for a half century, heard confessions. Counciled. To describe unhappy and unhealthy for those without the gift.
The biggest error in laity thinking is ONE SIZE FITS ALL. THE SECOND IS to opine for others without being in their shoes. The most righteous and unrealistic Catholic statements derive from these two factors.
I read a priest, who I trust, to tell me his view and observation. And I published it to you. That simple. No unsavory motives. Modern wisdom is to consult experience. By definition

 

[Rubee]

Where can you find sanctuary? Obvious.
In the church, position and as we now know, hierarchy protects you. A fraternity is not a hardship as it would be for a heterosexual with standard human impulse.
This is the influence of Celibacy rules.

Your one priest counts for very little in a tradition of saints and great celibate societies who have produced tremendous good. What evidence do you have that celibacy and not the lax rules of the 60s/70s precipitated this ‘invasion’ of unhealthy men into the priesthood? There’s lots to suggest its less strictness not more that created this problem in the last 50 years.

I’m sorry but its borderline heretical to insinuate that celibacy makes priests unhappy and unhealthy. Is it the grace in holy orders you deny or the teaching that our happiness comes from more than our sex lives? How many unhappy couples do we know? How many unhealthy and unhappy secular people having all the sex they want do we know? Your ideas are extremely worldly, with due respect.

 

[Maximus1]

Frankly it would be quite easy for me to climb the high horse and exclaim what others should.
After all, I am heterosexual, with wife, with children, and my church says I am just fine. I suffered no hardship in my youthful sex drive. And my church says good work. You kept your wife happy.
So forgive me if I self reflect on my lack of this particular challenge. And Lord give me empathy and humility to recognize judging from comfort, those with challenge and hardship should require extra care. I am about to opine about men with serious challenge. Opine about their suffering when I suffered none of what is in their life. Please give me the strength to evaluate them in a way that does not tweak my own pleasure centers of Christian worthiness WHEN I HAVE NO SKIN IN THEIR GAME, in their challenge.
Ok. Now I am ready.
First, the scandal did not begin the last 50 years. The lawsuits did.
I saw first-hand how parents were made pariah in conservative Irish blue collar parishes for coming forward. This happened during the " good old days" my friend. Before the Beatles.
And it isn’t heretical for a priest to convey honest experience or truth. If you are Maximus the Confessor, you might get your tongue cut out for it. But you are venerated in your bravery eventually.
If anything, the illusion of a 50 year old problem, is the only thing you wrote that frustrates a bit. The silence prior was success concealing. And of course you need not go back but a few decades before and the atrocity of child labor, Dickensian law and institutions thrived in the shadows.

 

[Rubee]

First, the scandal did not begin the last 50 years. The lawsuits did.
I saw first-hand how parents were made pariah in conservative Irish blue collar parishes for coming forward.

This is speculation. You’re simply assuming there was an abuse epidemic with zero facts, so forgive me if I treat that major presumption as just that.

I’m going to go with facts, and they suggest a major escalation after things became lax in the 60s. Moreover, they suggest a major improvement/reduction following many measures taken in the Church in the 90s/2000s, particularly in the U.S. where it first broke out in the news, and all WITHOUT TOUCHING CELIBACY. So I’m just gonna look at that and say, Nah! The idea that celibacy causes abuse of any kind, or unhealthiness or unhappiness is just unfounded worldly presumption that overemphasizes the role of sexual activity in human well-being: a modern anthropology of human beings that is unconnected to the Christian view of man and happiness.

I’m a Catholic single in her mid-thirties who has basically given up on finding a spouse: I do have some skin in the game when I suggest the ability to not sin is not the special preserve of a few. In any case, your ideas still make little sense regarding the priesthood since these men could always leave it if they found it as unbearable as you suggest. It’s not a cult, you know. But your idea is that celibacy in itself creates the ‘unhealthiness/unhappiness’ and that, with due respect is just a bucketload of offensive presumption. It’s almost like you think going some years without sex will corrupt a person. Based on what? Medical studies?

 

[Maximus1]

I am not speculating about what I saw first-hand.
Next
I am not sure what facts you went on.
You didn’t address my argument involving celibacy twice.
Let me begin with some actual data.
" Celibacy advances the priesthood’s culture of Compromised truths." Fr. Peter Daly, Nat Cath Reporter. 2019
Let me add another name. Richard Sipe.
Former priest and psychologist who," Devoted much of his life to the psychological treatment of priests. The main subject? Celibacy.
About 50% of priests, monks and bishops are ACTUALLY CELIBATE.
This creates a culture of secrets.
When you read the article, and the 1990 Sipe publication: “A Secret World : Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy.” we can talk facts.
He provides his own correlation between Celibacy and child abuse.
The most interesting quote ," Celibacy makes us liars."
I am not interested in adding " facts" as those alone make the point